Further Playtesting? Merc? Scouts? High Guard? Others?

[-Daniel-]

Do you believe that the open test:
a) contributed or detracted from the sales of the product?
b) resulted in a better or worse product?

I can not speak for Mongoose, but I will point out that:

Question A) would be hard to prove because the product had a built in interest factor just because it was Traveller either way. People would have talked about it either way. The Traveller Fan Community would have been curious either way.

Question B) This question is so subjective as to be useless. For those who loved stuff in the playtest document and felt the loss of some stuff was sad will say it was worse and those who hated elements in the playtest documents that were changed or dropped will say it was better. There is almost no way to answer this question objectively.

I would also like to point out there is a third alternative between full open test and closed to just a few playtest. Mongoose could send out an invitation or open call for people to “apply” for a playtest. Then select various groups to playtest based on a mix of ages, RPG experience, etc. Then ask these playtesters to return their observations etc by email. This would have been a “semi-closed” playtest because Mongoose could have invited quite a few folks and still the feedback would not have been subjected to the kinds of cross attacks seen in the flame wars.

Just my Opinion.

Daniel

 

[Golan2072]

Do you believe that the open test:
a) contributed or detracted from the sales of the product?
b) resulted in a better or worse product?

My takes of these:

a) As for me, the open playtest was one of the main reasons I've bought MGT; It gave me a sneak-peak of the rules, and I liked what I saw, so I shelled out the money for it. I'm not sure whether I've had bought it without an open playtest. Now that this edition has proven itself to me, however, I have no problem buying additional supplements (Mercenary, High Guard and Beltstrike for the very least) without needing much previews - based on my experience so far with the main book, I trust Mongoose to do a decent job (for the very, very least) with them.

b) IMHO the open playtest was very beneficial. There were two significant game mechanics with serious flaws (the previous incarnation of the Timing/Effect system and the old starship power-point allocation system) which the designers liked very much. The playtest has exposed these flaws and the designers changed them in the final product. I'm now happy with the new Timing/Effect systems, and while I'd prefer a slightly better handling of ship power allocation, I could live without it for a few months until High Guard comes out, and the current lack of power allocation is IMHO better than the system presented in the initial playtest draft.

 

[AKAramis]

Do you believe that the open test:
a) contributed or detracted from the sales of the product?
b) resulted in a better or worse product?

[/quote]

A) detracted. For every person I know attracted by it, I have heard two reject MoTrav due to it.

B) worse.
Rather than fix the two systems with issues, they replaced one and simply deleted the other, and this resulted in a third system which worked well being deleted.

The power rules needed a change in power draw scaling, not being tossed. they worked and worked well once the scaling of drive cost was fixed. (Tested to destruction, then fixed and tested further). They also provided for a nifty damage mechanism, tied to the old Bk 2.

The flaw in the timing effect system was easily fixable; since the skew as towards high die results: make 6 bad and 1 good. Ty's one proven point (that the math made exceptional results normative) is a strength when thos exceptionally likely 6's are marginal results rather than superlative ones. In either case, do not apply task DM's to the individual dice reads.

Alternatively, keeping 6=good, make the initial task roll 2d6 for success (8+DM's) or less (instead of 2d6+DM's for 8+)

As for someone's assertions that the playtest combat doesn't support infantry tactics... it perfectly supports the look and feel of melee combats that match my SCA experiences in melee (both heavy and rapier). Fire combat didn't rub any of my players, 3 of them former infantrymen, that way.

It was, however, a very boardgamish feel. My group was great with that.

 

[Golan2072]

Yes, Timing and Effect could be best fixed by uncapping them (and thus fixing their broken statistics; and ship power-points could better be fixed by the High Guard way (as I've suggested back at the day IIRC). But the point is that without the open playtest, we'd probably get stuck with the playtest-draft timing/effect system (statistically broken) and the playtest-draft energy-point system (over-complicated and yields ship accelerations contradicting what previous versions of Traveller have).

The best compromise, IMHO, is a wide closed playtest: by now the Mongoose crew probably knows which member of this board is liable to cause a ruckus and who isn't, and thus it looks quite possible to recruit a large group of playtester who would focus on system-testing work rather than flame-wars.

 

[captainjack23]

[

A few of them simply took their bitch and moan elsewhere.

I did not !!!!!! And let me demonstrate.
8)

That said, I note that at least one of the Loud Voices (tm) is now both taking credit for the change, AND decrying the "half assed untested replacement".


Oy.

 

[captainjack23]

The best compromise, IMHO, is a wide closed playtest: by now the Mongoose crew probably knows which member of this board is liable to cause a ruckus and who isn't, and thus it looks quite possible to recruit a large group of playtester who would focus on system-testing work rather than flame-wars.

Probably right, although that leads to 1. charges of cronyism and syncophancy (sp ?) on all kinds of related boards, and 2. Can miss flaws; problem is, sometimes you need to have a tester who dislikes the system to really tweak it to distruction-----the problem is, they also need to be willing to accept a solution....which isn;t always the case.

Real working decision groups very often appoint a gadfly for each session -the persons job is to pick at and question everything. The position rotates randomly, and everyone has to do it. I wonder if that would be one way to run a wide closed playtest ? Each topic has, for a while, one member chosen randomly and publicly to critique and generally question solutions and the nature of problems ? Then is taken off the hook.

I've been in several, and it is surprising how effective being the gadfly position (even once) is at encouraging one to look at issues in a balanced manner. Knowing that you may well be forced to critique any idea, including your own, is an odd and interesting experience.

 

[Allensh]

Cooly? Allen how long have you been a member of the TML? And what was your Essay?

I have been a member of the TML on and off since 1994. I took two hiatuses mainly because of issues with stuff. I don't know what you mean by 'essay'...am I required to write one?

I have seen little discussion of MGT on the list since its release. That was why I said "cooly". I have been getting the list regularly again since well before MGT was announced.

I suppose I could be wrong regarding the reception, and if so I apologize.

Allen

 

[Infojunky]

Cooly? Allen how long have you been a member of the TML? And what was your Essay?

I have been a member of the TML on and off since 1994. I took two hiatuses mainly because of issues with stuff. I don't know what you mean by 'essay'...am I required to write one?

Well, note really, but it is one of those things we have been inflicting in an off hand way as a sort of introduction piece for fresh meat...I mean New members. Not required but the new member gets much good will if he steps up to the bat, so to speak. But, you have been there, know the hot button issues, so I need say no more.

I have seen little discussion of MGT on the list since its release. That was why I said "cooly". I have been getting the list regularly again since well before MGT was announced.

Well, that is the problem there has been very little substantive conversation in years, it always mires down in the same old morass of inconsistent technological assumptions. I am trying to change that as of late MGT has given me a kick in the butt, that I didn't know i needed.

I suppose I could be wrong regarding the reception, and if so I apologize.

Yes and no, my reaction was a little sever, yes it did get a positive reception, but no one is gonna put any effort. If I offended you I beg your forgiveness, I am a little rabid right now.

As a side note, I am encourageing as many people as possible to sign up an play the floor is clear. Go to TML -- The Traveller Mailing List site join and be apart of the oldest Traveller organization on the internet.